Roku to power a new line of smart TVs

Roku calls its experience "simplified" compared to competitors.

Roku has doubled down on its position between customers and their televisions with its new line of Roku-powered TVs. In partnership with TCL and Hisense, Roku announced late Sunday that it will release the sets with a built-in Roku interface—no set-top box required—in the fall of 2014.

Roku's platform now consists of 1,200 apps, or “channels,” including Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Pandora, and Rdio. The Roku HDTVs will present access to these channels directly via the TV and its Roku-tagged remote; any other boxes or devices plugged into the TV will appear as additional channels.

Roku says its products comprise “a new generation of smart TVs” that offer a “simple entertainment experience,” contrasting its offering with that of companies like Samsung and LG, which have shown broad and complex smart TV interfaces in the past. The TVs will come in sizes between 32 and 55 inches. Roku will not make money off the hardware itself; rather, its profits will come from advertising routed through the interface.

According to Wired, Roku will be handling the software updates itself and welcomes other TV manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, Sharp) to join up its new Roku collective.

The Roku TV models will be available in the US and Canada in the fall. Pricing has yet to be announced.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

44 Reader Comments

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface. Also, it'd be nice if Roku could partner with a company that I'm more likely to buy a TV from (e.g. Samsung).

Well, nothing could be more complex than the shitty interface on my Samsung TV, so I welcome Roku to bust in, bust some heads, and make the interfaces better.

I have used various Samsung, Sony, Phillips, Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo consumer electronics products and have never seen one with even a mediocre interface - they are uniformly shit, though each in their own ways.

The problem here is that I buy a TV for the TV, not the smart features. Firstly, I want a good TV that isn't going to shit the bed in 3 years. If the TV I want doesn't have a good smart interface, I'll buy the Roku box to get the features that I need. It would be awesome if there were a standard add-in chip where one could choose what they want, but alas, manufacturers have no incentive to do something like this.

I don't think it is an issue with Roku getting things working on their side. Comcast intentionally limits your viewing options when connected to a TV. The money they make on having an extra cable box and being able to control on demand using their device is their primary motivator.

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface. Also, it'd be nice if Roku could partner with a company that I'm more likely to buy a TV from (e.g. Samsung).

I'm sure they would love to, but that would require Samsung to concede that their platform is not that great.

Well, nothing could be more complex than the shitty interface on my Samsung TV, so I welcome Roku to bust in, bust some heads, and make the interfaces better.

I have used various Samsung, Sony, Phillips, Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo consumer electronics products and have never seen one with even a mediocre interface - they are uniformly shit, though each in their own ways.

I set up my parents' new TV and was going to show them the online/streaming features until I saw the UI. It was so insanely bad (and slow!) that I didn't bother. I told them to get a Roku or Apple TV if they wanted to do that.

I don't think the issue with smart TV is the complicated interface, but rather the limited capabilities which it provides. Not having a unified keyboard support, subtitle control, or codecs across the various applications can be frustrating.

Most of these issues disappear with HTPCs, I just want them low power, always on, and built in.

Roku sucks. First it requires a credit card for using the device, even if don´t have the intention to use a paid channel. I never saw a hardware device that does not let you use it unless you enter your credit card first. This is disturbing, imagine if you buy a phone or game console and the first thing it asks you once it boots is to enter your payment information or you are blocked from using it. Lets not forget you paid for the stupid thing already...

What is worst is that once plugged in, Roku has content restriction. If you travel and take it with you, you will find out that Netflix for example does not work anymore outside the US, even if you are in a country where Netflix does work. Why would you spend money on a device like this if you can just use a standard computer, phone or any other small streaming device without any of the dumb restrictions that Roku imposes. I never had problems streaming from Android, Playstation, TV, etc.

I would never ever buy a TV if it advertises Roku on it. Just to find out they allow you to view only what they want and when they want it. You are locked into Roku, and that is just bad vs just using something more open.

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface. Also, it'd be nice if Roku could partner with a company that I'm more likely to buy a TV from (e.g. Samsung).

Are we sure that there will be new and/or different advertisements? You're already looking at Roku's ads in the latest OS.

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface.

I see ads on my Roku all the time. Ads for AOL's streaming services, ads for whatever new junk Amazon Instant Video has, ads for something called MGo. They're always next to the channel list and sometimes embedded in the interface (the AOL stuff just shows up as News or something at the same level as the root channel menu).

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

This probably has a limited market.

The computer inside the TV doesn't need to cost much, and it could be reprogrammable. I like the convenience of using a single remote and plugging in just one device.

Unfortunately, these things sell. People LOVE their "smart" devices. But I'm with a lot of the other people here. I treat my tv as if it were dumb - a very large monitor for other devices. The fact that it was a "smart" tv when I bought it didn't impact my decision to purchase it. And now, 3 years later, it's no longer getting updates from Samsung. I'd really rather just get a dumb monitor because there has to be some cost associated with the "smart" features.

FWIW: I don't want my car to be smart either but that's for another article I saw.

I set up my parents' new TV and was going to show them the online/streaming features until I saw the UI. It was so insanely bad (and slow!) that I didn't bother. I told them to get a Roku or Apple TV if they wanted to do that.

so many things start off this way. i'll show my mom this… oh i better not.

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

This probably has a limited market.

Although this is the smartest thing to do if you want versatility, it's not the most convenient. I think you're more the exception than the rule when it comes to TV consumers. Most people want a one-button solution.

Also, I do what you do on my main TV, but I have multiple TVs in my house. I like Smart TV features for my bedroom and office TVs.

I see ads on my Roku all the time. Ads for AOL's streaming services, ads for whatever new junk Amazon Instant Video has, ads for something called MGo. They're always next to the channel list and sometimes embedded in the interface (the AOL stuff just shows up as News or something at the same level as the root channel menu).

I don't think I see ads on my Roku 2 HD (circa 2011?). Maybe the OS hasn't been updated (I don't really maintain it.. just use it as a Netflix/Pandora/HBO GO box). Or maybe there are ads and I just don't notice them, which would render my objection to ads moot, hah. I'll have to check after work.

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface. Also, it'd be nice if Roku could partner with a company that I'm more likely to buy a TV from (e.g. Samsung).

Aside from the ads, what I care more about is being able to take my Roku and use it on different TV's. I get what they're trying to do, but that defeats the luxury I find in their device(s).

In case you are living in a cave comcast and time warner also have interactive UI ads on screen. An ad plays a message also pops up that says for more information press (A) on your remote.

Roku on TV itself isn't bad. It's interface is much easier than samsung just look at the remotes. That and Samsung must be connected to the net at all times in order function. Even for non streaming programs.

The problem here is that I buy a TV for the TV, not the smart features. Firstly, I want a good TV that isn't going to shit the bed in 3 years. If the TV I want doesn't have a good smart interface, I'll buy the Roku box to get the features that I need. It would be awesome if there were a standard add-in chip where one could choose what they want, but alas, manufacturers have no incentive to do something like this.

The problem here is that I buy a TV for the TV, not the smart features.

That's exactly what the manufacturers of the TVs you _aren't_ buying are saying. They are hoping you will choose their TV for the Roku interface. Personally, I am with you on this, but I hear a lot of people buying TVs for reasons other than picture (including price, which is an awful reason to buy a TV), so their gamble just might work.

I love my Roku .. I hope they haven't over-extended themselves with this. I'd hate to lose support for my Roku box.

The problem here is that I buy a TV for the TV, not the smart features. Firstly, I want a good TV that isn't going to shit the bed in 3 years. If the TV I want doesn't have a good smart interface, I'll buy the Roku box to get the features that I need. It would be awesome if there were a standard add-in chip where one could choose what they want, but alas, manufacturers have no incentive to do something like this.

Sure there is, it's called HDMI.

It lacks adequate support for peripherals and remotes, though.

I've had pretty good luck with Anynet+ stuff actually: Turn on my Sony receiver, Samsung TV turns on. Bring up a stream on my chromecast, it turns on both without me touching the remote, and switches to the correct input.

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

This probably has a limited market.

The computer inside the TV doesn't need to cost much, and it could be reprogrammable. I like the convenience of using a single remote and plugging in just one device.

Except that falls down as soon as you have more than one TV.

At that point, you're better off with a separate box so that the more important parts of the interface can be standardized between TVs and so that you aren't forever stuck with a single display vendor. Doesn't matter if you only have one TV at a time or several. Your Roku or HTPC represents a standard common interface.

I use my TV for streaming from my Roku box, playing games on Xbox 360, watching something through Chromecast, and (rarely) Blu-Ray. I do not have cable TV and do not live close enough to broadcast stations to get "local" TV.

My TV only has two HDMI ports. My Blu-Ray is always unplugged, since we use it rarely. The Chromecast can only be plugged in if the Xbox is unplugged. The Roku is always plugged in, since we watch every night.

This TV sounds perfect for my needs and may even free up an HDMI port so I won't have to switch out so many wires whenever I want to switch devices.

The problem here is that I buy a TV for the TV, not the smart features. Firstly, I want a good TV that isn't going to shit the bed in 3 years. If the TV I want doesn't have a good smart interface, I'll buy the Roku box to get the features that I need. It would be awesome if there were a standard add-in chip where one could choose what they want, but alas, manufacturers have no incentive to do something like this.

Sure there is, it's called HDMI.

It lacks adequate support for peripherals and remotes, though.

I've had pretty good luck with Anynet+ stuff actually: Turn on my Sony receiver, Samsung TV turns on. Bring up a stream on my chromecast, it turns on both without me touching the remote, and switches to the correct input.

HDMI allows for pass through of commands via a remote (ask my Raspberry Pi). It still looks sloppy to have an extra box with an extra power cable and an extra ethernet cable. Hence the desire for an add-in chip.

Roku represents an improvement over many (okay every) Smart TV interface I've seen. If Roku is charged with updates, it may mean we're less likely to have abandonware when the manufacturer moves on to next year's model.

It ~might~ make an easier Mom TV than other-tv-with-external-Roku, but I would not buy a TV specifically on the merits of the interface. I share the common thought that it's a monitor & external devices are swappable via HDMI (Roku is a $45-$100 box these days anyway), but if it was on a set I was already looking at, I wouldn't kick it to the curb.

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

This probably has a limited market.

The computer inside the TV doesn't need to cost much, and it could be reprogrammable. I like the convenience of using a single remote and plugging in just one device.

Except that falls down as soon as you have more than one TV.

At that point, you're better off with a separate box so that the more important parts of the interface can be standardized between TVs and so that you aren't forever stuck with a single display vendor. Doesn't matter if you only have one TV at a time or several. Your Roku or HTPC represents a standard common interface.

Why can't all of my TV's have the same low-power HTPC built-in? I wouldn't be moving a set-top box between them anyway.

What is worst is that once plugged in, Roku has content restriction. If you travel and take it with you, you will find out that Netflix for example does not work anymore outside the US, even if you are in a country where Netflix does work.

That's not Roku, that's Netflix. Roku has no control over Netflix's geographic content restrictions. In fact, Roku has no control over the content of ANY 3rd party channels.

To me a TV itself represents a much longer investment than any "smart" capability. Integration has never been the best way in the past (still using that VCR/TV combo?) so why should it be now? Make better/cheaper smart boxes, not better smart TV's.

I use my TV for streaming from my Roku box, playing games on Xbox 360, watching something through Chromecast, and (rarely) Blu-Ray. I do not have cable TV and do not live close enough to broadcast stations to get "local" TV.

My TV only has two HDMI ports. My Blu-Ray is always unplugged, since we use it rarely. The Chromecast can only be plugged in if the Xbox is unplugged. The Roku is always plugged in, since we watch every night.

This TV sounds perfect for my needs and may even free up an HDMI port so I won't have to switch out so many wires whenever I want to switch devices.

The problem with all of these approaches (Roku, LG WEBOS, Samsung, XBMC, etc.) isn't the technology but organizing the content in a simple way which requires buy in from the content providers. I use Apple TV3 , Apple iPAD/iPOD and iTunes for my entertainment - mosty because I invested in iTunes - not really an apple vs ruku thing.. I wish there were more "channels" for Apple TV.

I live in Canada so I dont get all of the "Channels/apps" that I would if I lived in USA. This is the same for Roku or Boxee. I could get around this by using proxy/vpn providers but that just makes it more complicated. I just want it simple. This is not an Apple, Roku, Boxee thing but copyright restrictions put on by Content and cable, phone providers on who owns the rights in each country to provide it. Until that gets sorted out, the smart tv is really just a pipe dream.

I use my TV for streaming from my Roku box, playing games on Xbox 360, watching something through Chromecast, and (rarely) Blu-Ray. I do not have cable TV and do not live close enough to broadcast stations to get "local" TV.

My TV only has two HDMI ports. My Blu-Ray is always unplugged, since we use it rarely. The Chromecast can only be plugged in if the Xbox is unplugged. The Roku is always plugged in, since we watch every night.

This TV sounds perfect for my needs and may even free up an HDMI port so I won't have to switch out so many wires whenever I want to switch devices.

Or....you could buy an HDMI hub.

***I actually did look for one here in my town. Nobody had one. I haven't looked for one online yet, because it slipped my mind.

I just can't get excited about "smart tv's". I consider a TV to be a durable item that should last 10+ years. Often when I replace a TV, the old one is still working and becomes a hand-me-down to the kids, so actually it's lifespan is much more than 10 years. The computer embedded in a smart TV seems like something that will go obsolete / unsupported in much less time than that.

I don't have confidence that an embedded processor or it's software will still be relevant that many years from now. In contrast, I can swap out an AppleTV, Roku box, Chromebox, etc. whenever it suits me, for very little $$.

I like the idea, but I would rather pay a bit extra for the Roku hardware itself. I don't want ads on my interface.

I see ads on my Roku all the time. Ads for AOL's streaming services, ads for whatever new junk Amazon Instant Video has, ads for something called MGo. They're always next to the channel list and sometimes embedded in the interface (the AOL stuff just shows up as News or something at the same level as the root channel menu).

That's why I'm all in favor of XBMC and any non-ad-driven TFI on my home theater box. Currently I'm using a WDTV Live, and while it's a bit underpowered for my tastes, it gets the job done and doesn't leave me foaming with ads built into the interface itself.

The problem with all of these approaches (Roku, LG WEBOS, Samsung, XBMC, etc.) isn't the technology but organizing the content in a simple way which requires buy in from the content providers. I use Apple TV3 , Apple iPAD/iPOD and iTunes for my entertainment - mosty because I invested in iTunes - not really an apple vs ruku thing.. I wish there were more "channels" for Apple TV.

I live in Canada so I dont get all of the "Channels/apps" that I would if I lived in USA. This is the same for Roku or Boxee. I could get around this by using proxy/vpn providers but that just makes it more complicated. I just want it simple. This is not an Apple, Roku, Boxee thing but copyright restrictions put on by Content and cable, phone providers on who owns the rights in each country to provide it. Until that gets sorted out, the smart tv is really just a pipe dream.

I wish them luck, but I use my TV strictly as a monitor for other devices that I will probably replace long before the TV. I doubt I would be interested in locking myself into a technology that is actually built into the TV.

This probably has a limited market.

Although this is the smartest thing to do if you want versatility, it's not the most convenient. I think you're more the exception than the rule when it comes to TV consumers. Most people want a one-button solution.

Also, I do what you do on my main TV, but I have multiple TVs in my house. I like Smart TV features for my bedroom and office TVs.

I think the best solution would be to have standardized "smart slots" on the TV, with an HDMI connection and a power connection on the inside, with a standardized position. Perhaps two different form factors, with different physical sizes (approximately 3.5 inch hard drive sized and 2.5 inch hard drive sized for example). Bigger TVs could accommodate several of the full-sized slots, while smaller TVs might have one full-sized slot and a few mini-slots. The TV itself would become mostly a dumb monitor, without even an OTA tuner built-in.

The "dumb" TV models would just come with an OTA tuner module installed in one slot, with an OTA antenna plug on the faceplate.. The "smart" TVs would have a more expensive module with OTA tuner plus smart features.

There could be HDMI extenders that just fill the unused slots and bring the HDMI port out to the front faceplate to easily plug in external devices. Someone could also get fancy and make modules that had a built-in HDMI cable on a retracting spool so you could wind it out to just the length you needed for neat cable management.

Roku, Apple, Google, Ouya, etc could all sell their devices in this standardized format that would eliminate a mess of cords.

The cable companies could provide their cable boxes in this modular form factor, so you just shove the "cable box" module in, instead of connecting an external box.

Up until recently, there was a pretty serious limitation on the capability of electronic devices packed into a small form factor like this, but improvements in mobile devices have pushed everything smaller and more power efficient (less heat to deal with).

Since HDMI 1.4 and newer also supports an Ethernet channel, the TV could have an internal Ethernet switch, so that a single Ethernet connection to the TV could provide connectivity to all the devices. The TV could also have a standardized API allowing connected devices to control the TV's "built-in" or shared functionality, such as brightness, contrast, built-in vs external speakers, etc., and possibly an IR receiver on the front of the TV that could forward any signals received to the installed devices.

Also, using a standard form factor like this would probably cut the amount of effort needed to design a nice-looking case for the device, and let the designers focus on the functionality and UI usability and aesthetics rather than the physical case aesthetics. Some companies might not like giving up the ability to differentiate the external appearance of their products, but personally I'd rather see them compete on features and UI rather than who put it in the prettiest box. I want the box out of sight.

High-end gaming consoles may still need a bit more space for now, but there's a lot of functionality that can be crammed into a mobile-phone-sized package, particularly when you don't need to use that space for a battery, screen, speakers and camera. With a 3.5 inch hard drive sized package, you could get even more.